Indeed. We're talking about a formal review (ie. critique & response published along with the article) vs what you're describing which is simply pre-publishing "Hey, could you look at this for me?" once over.

Indeed. We're talking about a formal review (ie. critique & response published along with the article) vs what you're describing which is simply pre-publishing "Hey, could you look at this for me?" once over.

No, not in the journal I edit.

G Cthulhu wrote:

We're talking about a formal review (ie. critique & response published along with the article) vs what you're describing which is simply pre-publishing "Hey, could you look at this for me?" once over.

You are responding to a statement I made for someone else to answer, so what you wrote may not be what they were thinking. Kind of presumptuous of you.

Anyway, you really, really seem to have a view of (some? all?) JALT/EFL journals that is not based in reality. Perhaps some are as weak as you think they are, but not all. Which ones did you have in mind?

I have no idea what the reviewer guidelines are for Mind (do you? If so, please let everyone here know), but for the journal I edit (and I believe for the main JALT Journal, too, since we use the same template), reviewers have to look at submissions as follows:

Rank on a scale of 1-5 the following:
Suitability for the journalís readership
Relevance of problem addressed
Review of published research
Methodology, design, or approach
Conclusions or Discussion
Quality of writing
Follows APA style sheet

Then give an overall 1-5 assessment (1= reject).

Then provide "Critiques and suggestions for improvement".

Reviewers may even be contacted after a revision has been submitted, just to see how well the overall changes matched with the reviewer suggestions and critique.

I believe this is far and above your remark of the review being a mere "once-over".